+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle...

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle...

Date post: 24-Oct-2019
Category:
Upload: others
View: 0 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
16
Editor: Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Heinz Konietzky Layout: Angela Griebsch, Gunther Lüttschwager TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Institut für Geotechnik, Gustav-Zeuner-Straße 1, 09599 Freiberg [email protected] Overview about damage evolution of brit- tle rocks Authors: Prof. Dr. habil. Heinz Konietzky & Dr. Thomas Frühwirt (TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Geotechnical Institute) 1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 2 2 Damage evolution under 3-dimensional compressional stress state ................... 4 3 Typical fracture pattern ........................................................................................ 6 4 References ........................................................................................................ 16
Transcript
Page 1: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Editor: Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Heinz Konietzky Layout: Angela Griebsch, Gunther Lüttschwager

TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Institut für Geotechnik, Gustav-Zeuner-Straße 1, 09599 Freiberg [email protected]

Overview about damage evolution of brit-tle rocks Authors: Prof. Dr. habil. Heinz Konietzky & Dr. Thomas Frühwirt (TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Geotechnical Institute)

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2

2 Damage evolution under 3-dimensional compressional stress state ................... 4

3 Typical fracture pattern ........................................................................................ 6

4 References ........................................................................................................ 16

Page 2: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks

Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016

Page 2 of 16

1 Introduction

Brittle rocks under loading do not only show elastic deformation but also subcritical and/or critical crack initiation and propagation (plastic deformation), which can finally also lead to macroscopic failure. This chapter considers damage evolution observed during typical lab tests and reveals the main mechanisms. Damage evolution is a complicated process, which begins at the micro-level (atomic level to grain-size level) and ends with the development of single or several macroscopic fractures, which split the sample into several pieces. The damage evolution depends on several parameters, like initial damage state of the sample, load-ing velocity, environmental conditions, sample shape and size, boundary conditions etc. Damage evolution is a process in time and space and difficult to observe in detail. Damage development of lab samples under loading can be monitored by seismic puls-ing or tomography, acoustic emission monitoring (e.g. Zaho et al. 2015) or computer tomography. Also, detailed deformation measurements (e.g. volumetric response and dilation, respectively) with separation of elastic and plastic parts give indications of damage evolution (e.g. Hoek & Martin 2014, Diederichs et al. 2004, Cai et al. 2004). In general two steps of damage can be distinguished as shown in Fig. 1:

Pre-failure range Post-failure range

In the post-failure range strain softening is the typical behavior of brittle rocks. Strain hardening is only observed for certain soft rocks, to some extend for salt rocks and some soil-like materials.

Fig. 1: General stress strain behavior for rock/soil samples under compression

Page 3: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks

Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016

Page 3 of 16

Fig. 2: Overview plot of different loading situations [Hoek & Martin 2014]

Page 4: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks

Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016

Page 4 of 16

2 Damage evolution under 3-dimensional compressional stress state

The most typical loading situation in rock engineering is the 3-dimensional compres-sional stress state including biaxial and uniaxial compression as special cases like ob-served at unsupported surfaces of underground excavations. Damage evolution of brittle rocks comprises the initiation, propagation and coalescence of microcracks until a macroscopic fracture is formed which finally leads to total failure. Several distinguished stress levels can be defined (see also Fig. 3 and 4):

Crack closure stress level: σcc Crack initiation stress level: σci Crack damage stress level: σcd Peak stress level: σpeak

This process can be characterized by the following stages (see also Fig. 3 and 4):

1) First phase (low stress level) is characterized by crack closure combined with volumetric compaction. Material behavior is nearly elastic.

2) Crack initiation starts between app. 30% and 50% of peak stress and is charac-

terized by crack initiation stress σci (see also Fig. 5). Stable crack growth is typi-cal for a stress level between σci and σcd. AE and dilation are starting at σci.

3) Fracture coalescence starts at about 70% to 80% of peak stress and is charac-terized by crack damage stress σcd.

4) Fracture coalescence takes place in the range between σcd and peak stress σpeak. At this phase unstable crack growth starts.

5) Final localization, shear banding and macroscopic fracture development takes place in the post-failure region after σpeak has been reached. This phase is characterized by massive unstable crack growth and rock desintegration.

Page 5: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks

Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016

Page 5 of 16

Fig. 3: Illustration of damage stages in stress strain diagrams [Cai et al. 2004]

Fig. 4: Triaxial compression test: Axial, lateral and volumetric deformation vs. axial stress [Diederichs et

al. 2004]

Page 6: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks

Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016

Page 6 of 16

Fig. 5: General relation between crack initiation stress and UCS [Hoek & Martin 2014]

3 Typical fracture pattern

Three most typical loading situations can be distinguished (see also Fig. 2):

Uniaxial compression Uniaxial tension 3-axial compression

Besides these typical loading situations further situations exist, like special biaxial load-ing conditions as well as 3-axial loading conditions with compressional and extensional components. This chapter considers only the three above mentioned simple loading situations. Under uniaxial tension only one single tensile fracture develops starting at the weakest point and propagating perpendicular to the applied tensile load (Fig. 6). Under uniaxial compression four different final fracture pattern can be considered as typical:

Vertical splitting (Fig. 7) Single inclined shear crack (Fig. 8) Conjugated shear fracturing creating a double cone shape (Fig. 9) Mixed-mode shear-tensile fracturing (Fig. 10)

Which type of fracture develops is mainly depending on the orientation of the mi-crocracks (anisotropy in strength) of the sample in relation to the loading direction. One

Page 7: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks

Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016

Page 7 of 16

typical example is slate: If the bedding plane is parallel to the loading direction, vertical splitting is observed (see Fig. 7 above); if loading direction is perpendicular to orienta-tion of microcracks, mixed-mode shear-tensile fracturing will occur (see Fig. 10 below). Under 3-dimensional compression macroscopic shear fracturing dominates as illustrat-ed in Fig. 11. Fig. 12 shows a schematic illustration of typical rock failure modes observed under uni-axial compression. Basu et al. [2013] found, that axial splitting dominates for rocks with lower UCS values, whereas shearing inlcuding multiple fracturing dominates for rocks with higher UCS. For rocks with pronounced anisotropy failure developes mostly along planes of weakness (foliation).

Fig. 6: Uniaxial tension tests: broken samples (gneiss-concrete-interface above, sandsone below) show-

ing clearly developed tensile crack [RML 2016]

Page 8: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks

Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016

Page 8 of 16

Fig. 7: Uniaxial compression test: vertical splitting (slate above, granite below) [RML 2016]

Page 9: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks

Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016

Page 9 of 16

Fig. 8: Uniaxial compression test: single inclide shear fracture (gneiss above, gneiss below) [RML 2016]

Page 10: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks

Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016

Page 10 of 16

Fig. 9: Uniaxial compression test: conjugated shear fracturing creating a double cone shape (granite

above, sandstone below) [RML 2016]

Page 11: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks

Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016

Page 11 of 16

Fig. 10: Uniaxial compression test: mixed-mode shear-tensile fracturing (gneiss above, slate below) [RML

2016]

Page 12: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks

Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016

Page 12 of 16

Fig. 11: Triaxial tests: single shear fractures as final fracture pattern, granite samples tested at different

confining pressures (10, 20 and 30 MPa)

Fig. 12: Schematic representation of typical failure modes [Basu et al. 2013]

The damage evolution can be simulated using continuum (e.g. Li & Konietzky 2015, Li et al. 2016, Li & Konietzky 2017) or discontinuum (e.g. Chen et al. 2016, Tan et al. 2015, Tan et al. 2016) mechanical approaches. Fig. 13 illustrates how initial microcrack orientations can influence the macroscopic fracture pattern: (a) shows vertical splitting, (b) single shear crack and (c) conjugated shear fracturing combined with mixed-mode fracturing. Fig. 14 compares final fracture pattern for a sample with uniform microcrack orientation under uniaxial tension and uniaxial compression. Besides continuum based simulations also discontinuum based approaches (Discrete Element Method or particle based approaches) can be used to simulate crack initiation and propagation as shown in Fig. 15. Corresponding lab test results are shown in Fig.

16, 17 and 18. The indices b1, b2 and b3 indicate the peak loading stages ( 1 reaches

the maximum value) under 2 =10, 20, 30 MPa, respectively, and the indices c1, c2 and

c3 are the reversal points in volumetric strain. Fig. 16 shows the energy balance de-duced from strain and stress measurements. The difference between total boundary work and elastic strain energy is the dissipated energy, which comprises heat genera-tion, fracture energy as well as seismic energy as main components. Based on either the actual stiffness or the energy balance, a damage value (0=undamaged, 1=total

Page 13: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks

Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016

Page 13 of 16

damage) is defined. Such analysis allows to observe the overall damage evolution with increasing loading.

Fig. 13: Typical fracture pattern for uniaxial compression tests based on continuum mechanical simulation

(a: microcrack orientation follows normal distribution with mean vertical direction; b: microcrack orienta-

tion follows normal distribution with mean direction of 60°; c: microcrack orientation follows uniform distri-

bution – red: microscopic shear fracturing, blue: microscopic tensile fracturing) [Li & Konietzky, 2017]

Fig. 14: Fracture pattern for uniaxial compression (above) and uniaxial tension (below) test assuming

uniform microcrack distribution – red: shear cracks, blue: tensile cracks [Li & Konietzky 2016]

Page 14: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks

Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016

Page 14 of 16

Fig. 15: DEM based simulation of damage evolution in granite (3-axial loading with 10, 20 and 30 MPa

confining pressure) [Chen et al. 2016]

Page 15: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks

Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016

Page 15 of 16

Fig. 16: Triaxial tests of granite: stress strain curves at confining pressures of 10, 20 and 30 MPa [Chen

et al. 2016]

Fig. 17: Triaxial tests of granite: energies vs. strain [Chen et al. 2016]

Fig. 18: Triaxial tests of granite: damage parameters vs. strain [Chen et al. 2016]

Page 16: Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks · Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016 Page 2 of 16 1 Introduction

Overview about damage evolution of brittle rocks

Only for private and internal use! Updated: 8 December 2016

Page 16 of 16

4 References

Basu, A. et al. (2013): Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression, Brazilian, and point loda tests, Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ, 72: 457-475 Cai, M. et al. (2004): Generalized crack initiation and crack damage stress thresholds of brittle rock masses near underground excavations, In. J. Rock Mech Min. Sci., 41: 833-847 Chen, W. et al. (2016): Pre-failure damage analysis for brittle rocks under triaxial com-pression, Computers and Geotechnics, 74: 45-55 Diederichs, M.S. et al. (2004): Damage initiation and propagation in hard rock during tunneling and the influence of near-face stress rotation, Int. J. Rock Mechn Min. Sci, 41: 785-812 Hoek, E. & Martin, C.D. (2014): Fracture initiation and propagation in intact rock – A review, J. Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 6: 287-300 Li, X., Konietzky, H. (2015): Numerical simulation schemes for time-dependent crack growth in hard brittle rock, Acta Geotechnica, 10: 513-531 Li. X, Konietzky, H & Li, X. (2016): Numerical study on time dependent and time inde-pendent fracturing processes for brittle rocks, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 163: 89-107 Li, X. & Konietzky, H. (2017): Relation between fracture modes and initial microcrack distribution, in preparation Nicksiar, M. & Martin, C.D. (2013): Crack initiation stress in low porosity crystalline and sedimentary rocks, Engineering Geology, 154: 64-76 RML (2016): Rockmechanical laboratory, Geotechnical Institut, TU Bergakademie Freiberg Tan, X., Konietzky, H., Chen, W. (2016): Numerical simulation of heterogeneous rock using discrete element model based on digital image analysis, Rock Mech Rock Eng, 49: 4957-4964 Tan, X. et al. (2015): Brazilian tests on transversely isotropic rocks: laboratoty testing and numerical simulations, Rock Mech Rock Eng, 48: 1341-1351 Tang, C. & Hudson, J.A. (2010): Rock failure mechanisms, CRC Press, 319 p. Zhao, X.G. et al. (2015): Objectiv determination of crack initiation stress of brittle rocks under compression using AE measurements, Rock Mechanics Rock Engineering, DOI 10.1007/s00603-014-0703-9


Recommended